Franklin's Argument Against Slavery

With the discrimination of human beings, annihilation of masses, and carnage of innocents, history shows how vicious human actions can be. What separates people from animals that kill others just the same? Human being’s ability to use reasoning to validate the cruel actions they take upon others. People often use logic and premises to warrant the actions they wish to take. It is convenient for them to have this ability to allow them to do as they please as long as they can support it with reasoning, not only for others to understand, but also to make themselves feel less guilty of their desires. These inclinations, after all, often go against their very principles and moral standings; therefore, rationale behind the actions they take for these
…show more content…

In the late 18th century, southern slaveholders relied on the institution of slavery for their economic prosperity. Despite the fact that slavery went against religious principles, along with the principles of democracy, the slaveholders had to find a way to justify it because of their reliance on it. They justified slavery through racism by explaining that it does not go against the principles of democracy because Africans are an inferior people who are "suited" for slavery. The slaveholders referred to it as a "positive good" because of the class distinctions it gives and the guarantee of equality for whites it provides since they will not have to do the work slaves do. Another part of their reasoning was that if men in the north use "wage slavery", the exploitation of workers in the factories, then southerners should be free to keep the normal slavery. Many people were against the institution of slavery because it went against the democratic principles and religious values America was created upon, however, when they realized how much wealthier and more influential they could be with slaves working their crop, they used convenient reasoning to justify their precious institution. They had an inclination towards slavery despite their principles, and so, they used reasoning as a justification. The men who used
…show more content…

In 1945, two deadly atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing many innocent people in an instant. The United States decided to drop their first bomb on Hiroshima, and when Japan did not surrender, they decided to drop another on Nagasaki. Japanese forces were then forced to step out of the war after the mass destruction caused by the bombs. Many died instantly, while others died from the radiation days following the initial attack. These bombings went against the morals of many, yet, America justified these attacks. According to President Harry Truman, the reason the United States dropped the bomb on Hiroshima was because of Pearl Harbor, an attack on a US naval base that killed 2400 people. President Harry Truman then justified the second bomb dropped on Nagasaki by saying that since Japan did not surrender, the United States was forced to take action. However, in a war that the government decided to remain isolated from, and then decided to attack because of a provocation, it is strange that Japan-who killed 2400 soldiers- was forced to pay the price with over 129,000 deaths of innocent civilians. Rather than giving men or supplies to the Allies, the United States decided to decimate a large portion of Japan 's population. It was simply convenient for the United States to use this reasoning